 Okay, all right everybody. It is 731 and we are now open for this February 22nd meeting of governance organization legislation committee. I keep getting slightly distracted because my partner is downstairs watching Star Wars and every once in a while the music gets really loud and it comes through my headphones. I keep turning you up because I'm like, what's happening? Okay. Anyway, it's Attack of the Clones. It's the worst one. But I'm going to go ahead and take attendance and call the roll to make sure that we can hear and be heard. Let's start with Lynn Griesmer. Present. Pat D'Angelo. Present. George Ryan. Present. And Councillor Ate is absent today. He informed me ahead of time. And I am on and I am present. And Athena, can you hear us and we can hear you? Awesome. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So I am seeing no attendees. And so we're going to move through public comment pretty quickly. It looks like tonight. And the first item on our agenda is the approval of the, oh my gosh, now my dog stopped loading, approval of the 2024 Tibetan National Uprising Day Proclamation. As a reminder, we are voting this clear, consistent and actionable. We are not voting the content. Lynn, you said you did have a version of this available to George to do the comment. I do. Just two seconds and I will pull it up. George unmuted. And so I'm assuming he's very eager to. I know I have it. And I did pull it up earlier and it is a word version. And to that right there. Okay. So here we go. The other name to be added, by the way, is Pam Rooney. Okay. Thank you. My name in red was one of the edits that I made. So the other ones are probably there as well. Oh, okay. I think you will see that. Yeah. I did it in the one in the packet by accident. And I apologize. I really didn't. But you'll see it's mostly, it's not changing anything except making a correction in one where there was some things admitted. So if you can highlight those, I was going to say, oh, okay, they are in red. Okay. All right, let's start up at the top here. And I'm going to read this through and stop me after each. Lynn, could you scroll back up to the top? We'll go through. I'm not going to read this through exactly. I'm going to ask, does anyone have any corrections on the first paragraph, the first whereas on March 10? Seeing none. Moving to the second whereas the annexation and ongoing. Oops. Sorry. No, you're okay. No. There we go. Thank you. Third whereas on December 19. I forgot what number four. I'm going to stop counting them next. Whereas December 27. Okay. Next. Whereas the local community. Next. Whereas in recognition of. Okay. Whereas as many as one million. Whereas over one million. Okay. Page two. Whereas the president. Whereas the Chinese invasion of Tibet. All right. I know we have some on the next one. Whereas Pat, do you want to just talk us through? You made a couple. Yeah. It originally said China illegally occupied Tibet over 65 years. And I thought it sounded better to say China has, because it's still doing it illegally occupied Tibet for over 65 years and refused, which was in the original proclamation. Great. Thank you. Any concerns with Pat's edits here? No. Those are the ones I saw. Yeah. Great. Thank you. All right. Next one. Pat, you want to walk us through? Yeah. And this one I didn't this what I've added is to take stronger multi ladder. That was in the proclamation and it was accidentally left off. It ended with urges. Yes, there was a gap. Governments or something. Yeah. So anyway, there was section that section was missing. So all I did was add it. Okay. Okay. Thank you. All right. That's the end of Pat's. Okay. Next one. Where is the town of Amherst? My only question is, don't we capitalize T in that town of Amherst? Yeah. Right there. I got one. I rarely get them. That's exciting to me. George usually catches that. I missed it. I missed it. I'm not 100% anyway. You sound so sorry, George. I do. I do. But I'm here. We're very glad you are here. My question on the, my only other question I had was on, in the second to last whereas, or sorry, in the first now therefore, there we go. Is Tibet Day capitalized? Is that intentional? I don't remember. I'm pricing today. It's capitalized. Yes, that is capitalized. No, sorry, not that part. And then it's continued to, yeah, that part, Tibet Day. Is that supposed to be an all cap sum? I'm okay if it is. I just wanted to make sure it was intentional. The sponsors have reviewed this. Yeah, I don't know why they did it, but they did it. So yeah. Okay. That's, I, it doesn't, yeah, I don't have a problem with it. I just wanted to make it, Lynn, you're one of the sponsors. So if you, well, no, I meant the actual Tibetan sponsors, the community. Yeah, maybe their way of emphasizing that it's a special day. I don't know. Yeah, it's fine. My only other thing, sorry, sorry. This is a consistency thing. We swapped back and forth in this last paragraph using first and last names and using just last names. And I think if we want to be picky about it, we should just stick with, I think just stick with last names or go one or the other. But I think we, we swapped back and forth. That is correct. That makes, that's correct. You can choose which one. Which one do you want? Why don't you just delete, let's just delete Edward and Elizabeth and keep it as last names. Yeah. Yeah. I think those are the only ones that you got. Okay. You have something against names starting with E, huh? Yeah. My mom's name is Elizabeth. And this is, I think that one can say, I think we can say, because it's, no, I think the spelling's correct, but I would keep that full name because you start with the name versus, yeah. Right. Okay. So without any further edits, I move to declare the 2024 Tibetan national uprising day proclamation, clear, consistent, and actionable. Do I have a second? Second. All right. Wait, I got to write this down because Athena's not here. And so I want to make sure I got it. Okay. And I'm going to go ahead and call the vote. Councillor Ryan. Aye. Councillor Dangels. Aye. Councillor Grisner. Aye. And I am an aye. So it is a foreign favor, none opposed, one absent. Actually, I just wrote 12 absent. That would be bad. Okay. Thank you all, Lynn. Thank you very much for doing the screen share for us. Appreciate it. All right. Okay. I'm done with that one. Excellent. All right. Next up, in your packets, I, when I want to apologize, there was a lateness of things getting the packets. I typically do my GOL work on Fridays right after the meeting before. And this week it took a nosedive and I was doing it on Tuesday and Wednesday. So apologies for the lateness of some of the things that were in the packet. However, I think that we can review them just in case folks didn't have time to read them, which would be very understandable. So we're going to move on to the 2024 councilor liaison recommendations. And what was in your packet was the list compiled of committees who had indicated that they would like a liaison, as well as committees who indicated they did not or committees who did not answer, or it was not applicable for. Thank you. So what our role is today is to approve a list to send to the council or to vote a list to send to the council. And then this is really more in my understanding is that this is really more informational. Councilors can opt to serve as a liaison for any committee they choose whether or not that committee wants a liaison and a committee wanting a liaison does not guarantee them a liaison. This basically is informational for counselors to say we, you know, these are the folks who are seeking liaisons. There are 15 committees seeking liaisons. I can pretty much guarantee they will not all get one. So our job is to kind of create a list to say to the council, these are the ones we think we should prioritize really. Pat question. Yeah, one of the things in the rules of procedure, it lays out what the role of the liaison is. And that's, it's been true since the council started. And I believe I may have come from the select board, Lynn, is that true? Yeah, I can't raise my hand because I'm, I can't figure out how to raise my hand and show. So let me just tell you how this list came about. Okay. Well, can I finish what I was going to say? Or you're talking about this list right now but I'm actually talking about the process by which we actually shared what liaisons do. Okay, go ahead. So I'd like to, yeah, okay, go ahead, Lynn. I have a plan for it, but I'm happy to hear. So, after our last meeting, I was at where we agreed that as president, I would contact each of the committees of the town except, well, I'll give the exceptions. And in the process, I would explain and make sure they understood the role of liaison and I both put it in the email and I put it in, attached it so that they were very well aware of what the role was. And then I asked them to get back to me by the 15th and then I did some follow up. And this is the result of what happened. The council, the committees I did not ask for were elementary school building committee and Jones library because they already have counselors on them. And the others, as you can see what Anna has done here is she starred the ones that have had liaisons in the past. And we had an overwhelming interest in this and then some others that declined. So that's, they were made aware whether they really understand it is another issue. And I think what Pat, you're talking about going in the other direction. Yeah, that awareness. Yeah, because I'm glad the committees understand the problem is that counselors don't follow the rules. And that's been particularly true on a couple of the committees. And, and that's something that we really need to talk about. You know, Alicia may want to become the liaison for community safety and social justice committee. That, that would, I find it problematic because I think, I don't think she could stay outside. And we have that happening with Pam Rooney on planning. All right, I don't think we need to give specifics for, for what necessarily has transpired and I'm sorry, I don't know that we need to go into specific examples of specific counselors. Okay, but I'm very concerned that that's happening. And it's unfair to every other counselor, because it gives somebody who's not following the guidelines and advantage that other counselors have because they're engaging in discussion with the committee. Thank you. I'm going to make a quick comment, which is to, to share that when I send this final list that Joel decides back to the council, my plan was to include MMO that outlines the role of the liaison. And I think that will be mentioned when we do the liaison decision process at the council as well. Ultimately, counselors are bound by the rules of procedure. And if we can't follow a rule of procedure, we need to figure out what we're going to do about that. Right? So I think that there's, we as GOL can adapt the rules of procedure if we see fit. But I think what all we can do with this particular list right now, and, and because we aren't talking about the rules of procedure and that wasn't on the agenda, we're not necessarily getting there. But when I send this in, I will include a information about what the role of liaison is. And I will repeat that at the council meeting before we present that. I think other than that, I think this is a, I believe an interpersonal thing where folks, if they see it happening, need to reach out to another counselor and say, Hey, just a reminder, that would be my recommendation. That one has been tried. I understand. Lynn. Yeah. My other recommendation is to strongly urge counselors who are very interested in a topic to the point that they would like to from time to time make public comment at those meetings that they really consider not being at liaison committee. Okay. I will include that. All right. Okay. So any other thoughts on that? I will. So just to confirm in the memo, when I send this to Lynn, I will include the role of the liaison, as well as a reminder for counselors, if they have a burning passionate interest in a specific area, that being the liaison may not be what they want to do, but they ultimately they can decide. Okay. So looking at this list, my recommendation is that we also, as we consider which ones we want to emphasize that we also consider where the priorities of the council, the goals that we set for the town manager, if we're looking for a way to narrow it down. That was my thought in terms of organizing this list a little bit. And I have my ideas based on that. But if other folks would like to propose a different strategy, I'm open to it. Okay. So based on this list, which committees do you feel are, let's kind of just, when we start think about where to start this, we don't have a number we need to get to. We can recommend all of these right now and be done, or we can really kind of go through and pick out a select number. So I think starting with the priorities felt wise to me. Lynn. Anna, thank you. I think that is a really good filter. I also think another filter is what to what extent does the business of this committee come before the council? Because there's some of these that I'd love to give everybody a lease. And by the way, we did have one per one committee come back and say, oh, we would like so and so from our committee to be a liaison to the council. And so they didn't kind of understand what we meant. So, but those I think would be an added filter. That's fair. Okay. Let's just run down the list here and kind of do a quick sort of straw poll of if folks believe that this committee should continue to be prioritized for liaison or not. I'm going to make a list off to the side of the ones we want to keep. Okay. Okay, Lynn. I can also do that on my end if you'd like. It's do you have the word? I have it pulled up. Yeah. Okay. Great. Yeah. George. And I suggest just a thought that maybe we use a simple numerical one, two, three. So top priority, low priority, low priority with that help. That's a great idea. Well, we could also just offer down. So I either one could work, but there might be somewhere we might have sort of mixed views. So maybe it would make sense to people sort of one would be top priority, two would be three would be lowest priority. I think that's a really good idea, George. Thank you. It was either that or bracket style elimination. So I think that's a good call. All right. So let's start down. So everyone is clear. One is top priority, two is middle, three is lower priority. Not does not mean that they are not important and that their work is not valued. I want to be really clear. All these committees do incredible work. Lower liaison priority. Okay. So Amherst affordable housing trust fund board of trustees, I'm going to go ahead and just call quickly. Give me a one, two or three. George. I said George. Pat. One. Lynn. One. All right. And I am also a one. Okay. Public art commission. I'm not going to switch up the order. Sorry, y'all. George. I would say three. Okay. Pat. Three. Lynn. I'm going to say two, but later we'd like to explain why. Okay. I'm going to say two generally, but I'm curious for Lynn's reasons. Board of Health. George. I'd say, I don't know. I guess one. Okay. Sorry. One. No, you already made it a one three three to give us the middle. All right. Pat. Yeah. No, I go with the one on that. Okay. Lynn. A one. And again, I have a reason for one. Okay. And I'm a two on that one. Council on Aging. George. I'm going to say one. Okay. Pat. I'm going to say one also. Okay. Lynn. One. I am also a one there. Okay. My old stomping grounds. Conservation commission. George. I'd say two. Okay. Pat. I say one given what's going to be coming up. Okay. Lynn. One. Okay. I was going to, okay. I'm a two there. Community Preservation Act committee. George. Yeah. One. Okay. Pat. One. Okay. Lynn. One. And I am also a one community safety and social justice committee. A one. Okay. All right. Lynn. I'm undecided. You want us to come back to you? Sure. Okay. I'm a one there and I'm happy to explain that. We're going to, we're now halfway down the list, so I'm going to switch the order. I'm going to throw it, throw everybody off. George just had to go first the whole time. Disability Access Advisory Committee. Lynn. One. Okay. Pat. One. Hey, I'm still in the middle. Oh, you're right. Sorry. I'll throw myself in here. I'm a two and George. Two. Okay. Amherst Cultural Council. Lynn. One with a reason to be explained. Okay. Pat. Amherst Cultural Council. Are you asking me? I'm sorry. I guess we're asking you. Welcome to my life. Maybe it's you. I don't know. It's not. Okay. I am a two and George. Three. Three. Okay. Energy and Climate Action Committee. Lynn. One. Okay. Pat. One. All right. I am a one and happy to explain why, George. One. Okay. Historical Commission. We'll switch it up one more time. Pat. Historic two. Okay. Lynn. Two. Okay. I'm a three. George. Three. Okay. Human Rights Commission. Pat. One. Okay. Lynn. One. Okay. I am a two. George. Two. Okay. Planning Board. Pat. One. Okay. Lynn. One. Okay. I'm actually a two here. George. Yeah. I think I'm a two as well. Okay. Public Shade Tree Committee. Pat. Three. Okay. Lynn. Three. Okay. I'm a three. George. A three. Okay. And Transportation Advisor Committee. I will go first for once. One. George. One. Lynn. One. Okay. And Pat. One. Okay. So let's let's pause here for a second. I want to offer opportunities for folks who had said they wanted to explain their reasoning. So I'm trying to remember the Public Arts Commission. Lynn, you had something you wanted to say and I wanted to note this one specified through June 2024 only. So there's a reason I'm assuming. That's part of my reason. And the other reason is, which goes along with this reason, there is actually an active discussion going on about merging Public Arts Commission and Cultural Council. The one has a mission and the other one has money. And one of them is going to have to be involved in the elementary school art project as a present for it. So I think that that for the moment and this year, I think it's important. Hmm. Excuse me. Sorry. Okay. Thank you. Any other thoughts on this or would anyone like to change their rank order? Because I was trying to switch everybody's order up. I don't know whose vote was whose. We had two threes and two twos for Public Art and two twos, one one and one three for Amherst Cultural Council. I thought I was a one for Public Art. Maybe not. Oh, I had you as a two, but I can switch you out to be one. All right. Board of Health, did anyone have anything to add on that one? Oh, I do actually. Yeah, yeah. Part of the conversation that's going on in TSO about waste hauling involves health. And if, depending on how that goes, that committee could be very important. Okay. Thank you. Council on Aging, anyone have any comments on that one? No. I put it as one because I feel like there has been a lot of activity in terms of the Bang Center and the needs of the elderly. And I think that it would be helpful for them to have some connection to the council. I'm inclined to agree with you. Agreed. Conservation Commission, Pat, you had said you had a comment on this. I think, given that there's all this stuff that's going to be coming up with solar bylaws and things like that, I would love to see if the Conservation Commission feels like they need a liaison. I would like to support that. Okay. I think my reason for giving a two on ConCon is they're one of the most well-organized and well-run committees that I've seen. And I think that in terms of, and I know that that's biased because I think I've seen them more than most other committees. However, I think that in terms of liaison, the role of a liaison and how we spend our time, I think we would be equally served by someone agreeing to read minutes, which is pretty much all liaisons does anyway. So I guess I'm kind of walking that back, or all liaisons has to do, liaisons can do, can attend. But yeah, I'll walk that back. I'm going to say it too, but I think I see your point. And I can go back to listening to that, to your reasoning. I don't know. I think I just, I trust a lot of the folks that are on there because I've seen them in action, but that's really subjective to my own opinion. And if I understand the point of this exercise, it's to try and knock a few of these off, because otherwise we could just say, look, put them all, put them for the council. And if somebody wants one, go for it. I think the real issue is going to be what happens when the counselors look at this list, and how many people actually are interested in serving on more than one. And then maybe nobody. And I remember when we first did this, we had trouble getting even six or seven to want to be liaisons. Now maybe things have changed in the last year or two. But I guess we're looking for reasons to remove an item if we can. Are people comfortable with that? Or would they rather maybe the answer is just put them all out there and see what happens? So George, I think my plan, or I guess let me share with the committee, what do you think about if I, when I present this, I say these are, this is the list that GL is recommending be considered top priority. And then I also include, these are the committees that requested a liaison that we did not necessarily recommend the top priority. And these are the committees that did not seek a liaison. Okay. If I include that as well. So you'll take the green list and break it into two. Yeah. Correct. That's kind of my thought. Does that make sense to folks? And the thought being that if someone sees somebody in the category two, and they really feel strongly they want to be liaison for that group. Yeah. I guess we're not saying no. Right. We're definitely not saying no. I mean, if I want to be a liaison to a committee that didn't want one, so we can do it. I was just wondering, yeah, because if somebody, you could request to be a liaison of a committee that's not even on this list. My understanding is that we can. Is that correct, Lynn, to your knowledge? The council decides which committees they want to have liaisons to. So somebody proposes the council could vote and say, yeah or no. All right. And they're all public meetings. So when we sit in the audience, people can just go. Exactly. Exactly. All right. So I'm going to move down the list further. Lynn, you did not put a number in for oh, sorry, Community Preservation Act committee. I don't think I think we all are clear on that one based on its relationship to the council. That makes sense. The Community Safety and Social Justice Committee, Lynn, you did not put a vote in. No, I wouldn't want to eventually. It's because they have a serious set of recommendations before the council. Yep. That was my rationale as well. Okay. Any for disability access advisory committee, any comments? Yeah, the reason I have one there is because this is a committee that's often not listened to by the people that they need to speak with like Guilford and even Paul, who, you know, I have a lot of respect for Paul, but they're not heard. They're not reached out to when things are coming up that that ordinarily would affect them. They're also planning to go through. They are hoping to become also a commission as opposed to a committee. And I must admit, I'd like to stay on that committee because I've gotten close to the people and I don't think I overdo it. You know, I just carry messages back and forth, but I think that they need that support. Okay. Thank you. Amherst Cultural Council, Lynn, you spoke to this a bit earlier when you talked about Public Art Commission. Anything else to add? No. Okay. Energy and Climate Action Committee, I rate everybody else also said one here. I will just say one of the reasons why I think this committee is particularly important to have a liaison is it was incredibly helpful to have them support or their support when it got to the goal setting process for the town manager. This is one area where we have specific climate action goals and we, none of us as counselors, my understanding, I believe none of us as counselors work in the climate space. So it was really helpful to have our expert folks having conversation and the liaison able to kind of carry that back into the goals conversation. Sounds good to me. Historical Commission got lower marks from us. It looks like this one will not make the cut for our finalist. Any comments on that? Okay. Human Rights Commission, this one is split down the middle. Any comments for or? Yeah, I want to just comment. They actually would like to in this year change their charge. And there's a there's some serious disagreement about that. And so it is, you know, it's appointed by the town manager. But nevertheless, they are the committee that reviews the human rights complaints. They have asked for a liaison a couple times in the last several months. Okay. What are they seeking to gain from having a liaison? Do you know? I think just more, more maybe appreciation for what they do, more understanding what they do. They're a big sponsor of events in town. That's right. That's right. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense to me. I wasn't sure because I think when you were when you were speaking, it sounded almost like they were seeking advocacy. And again, like how do we make sure that we're clarifying that that role responsibility? But that make a lot of sense. Planning board, I want to speak to my two here. Planning board is another one. And I this is the controversial hot take. They already send us their minutes and their agendas and their packets. Every counselor gets that Pam sends them out. I don't feel Pam Stadler. I don't feel that an liaison benefits the council to this committee because we already received so much information from them on a really regular and consistent basis. So while I understand that a lot of their work relates closely to the council's work, I don't actually think that a liaison shifts anything about how we work with the planning board. That's my hot take. Yeah, I would have some sympathy with that for you. I'm wondering if we just take it off the board completely and just let take it off. I'm sorry. Yeah. Why don't let me clarify? So we have why don't we redo if after the discussion folks are feeling differently? Let's redo the ranking the one to three here. Let's not boot it. I want to change my vote. I want to change my vote. Okay, George, what do you want? Planning board becomes a three. It becomes a three. Okay, three. Pat. Three. Okay, Lynn. Two. Okay. And I'm a three. Okay. Public Shade Tree Committee. Any thoughts? We have three. I think that's going. That's three. Okay. Yeah, I think it's they do good work, but it's great. I love the great events, but right, it's not. Yeah. Transportation Advisory Committee. I think this is one where we know that we're working on a commission here and the this will be I think really an important one. I want to note that tax specifically requested a liaison from TSO. Andy has served in this capacity for the past couple of years and it has been really beneficial to have. A liaison report back to TSO as they are the committee that works most closely with TAC and will work most closely with any future transportation commission. TAC has also really struggled to figure out their place. That's part of why that commission is looking to take shape to figure out what their responsibility and what their ownership is over some of these decisions, but generally a lot of things around public way, a lot of things around projects go through TAC. We all voted in one. I just wanted to explain why I think they're there. Let me throw out a thought here. What if we were to leave that up to TSO and just take it off the board? In other words, we just assume that TSO sort that out. Why not? Because I still think needs to be a formalized liaison. Really? Yeah. Because then you get, I mean, TSO is going to be having it probably will turn out to be somebody from TSO. And if it isn't somebody from TSO, then it seems like duplication. It seems like why would get another counselor because TSO is going to be in constant, assume will be in constant communication. At least it was when I was on this committee. We were in constant communication with TAC. I think that the confusion over TAC's charge has amplified in the past couple of years. And so weather has been communication between TAC and TSO, at least when I was on TSO for the past couple of years, it's been more of, it hasn't been as smoothly integrated. And so I think that your experience on TSO may not have been the case for the past couple of years. So how's the liaison? It sounds like it was beneficial. How's the liaison? Well, the liaison would report back on what TAC is working on and, you know, how their discussions would go. But it wasn't. Okay. And you wouldn't have a that likely would be a person who's sitting on TSO. But that's, you know. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. The other thing is that the town manager is working with the TAC chair at this point to actually come forward with a proposal for a transportation mission. And that may actually take some responsibilities from the council over some dead bodies. But all right. So where I'm going with this is we've got six, six committees that have all ones here. So Amherst affordable housing trust fund, council on aging, CPA or community preservation act, excuse me, community safety, social justice, energy and climate action and transportation advisory. Those are our like bucket one ideal ones or top kind of top level. Then we have in the next year, we've got board of health and then conservation commission, human rights commission and disability access advisory. So I'm trying to do quick averages in my head. Then we get into public art, cultural council. And then we have planning board of public shade trade. That's sort of the rough out that's the I will I'll order these, but just kind of confirming those those six were the ones that we are seeming to really be prioritizing. Right. So do we want to list them all with with numbers or do we want to do some editing and take I'm going to take the numbers out. I'm going to take the numbers out and I'm going to say these are the top six, or maybe I can say the top eight if folks are feeling strongly that board of health and board of health, human rights commission and the ones who got like one or two twos. So if we up it that's nine. So that would include here's here's our final list if we go with the ones kind of the top half here. Amherst affordable housing trust fund, board of health, council on aging, conservation commission, community preservation act committee, community safety, social justice committee, disability access advisory committee, energy and climate action committee, human rights commission and transportation advisory committee. I think that's nine. Do you want to go with those nine as are recommended? And we wanted human rights in the top category we agree. They're in there. Yep. They got two one of the two twos. Lynn. Yeah, so one option is due to shades of green. Yeah, this list. I think it would be useful for the council to see the other lists, but I'm glad to give an explanation about how we got to these list. I also think there's a possibility we may hear from the recreation commission. And we might as well discuss it now because we had a liaison to them in the past. I, you know, that's been me, the recreation committee. And I don't think that they're, I don't think I was very useful for them. Okay. And I have some questions about some of the committees that did not request one. And one of them that stood out to me was the personnel board. And I'm not as as closely familiar with their work, but one of the reasons it stood out to me is one of the things the council has asked Paul to do is undergo a staffing study. And as we think about that particular end, and this is touchy, right? Because it's very close to overstepping the bounds of the council. But if we're asking for a staffing study, is that likely to be the group that would be the closest to that? And so I think that was something that piqued my interest as a possible liaison. Lynn. Um, they would very likely be involved. But I, again, I see it as more advisory to the town manager than, and I really do think there's a fine line there. I understand. I think for me, it was as we look at the, the goals that we set for the town manager, a lot of one of them is about how the, how the operating end of the town functions, right? And so I think that there's not, I don't think that it would be completely out of line, but I recognize the fine line that it does walk. Can I ask this to pursue a question? Sure. When this finally goes to the council and say, counselor X looks at our list and proposes a different body they want to sit on, then the entire council votes on whether to approve that or not. Is that how it works? The entire council votes to approve any liaison appointment that any counselor indicates an interest in. Normally there'd be a list. People put their names on it and then that would be that. And we'd vote on it as the entire list. But if someone proposes something that's not on any list, um, uh, how is that going to play out? We would add it to the line. I'm sorry. We'd add it to the list. Yeah, but I think the council does have to agree because again, I want to go back to what is the role of the late. And, you know, if a counselor wants to attend a committee meeting, they can attend any committee meeting they want to. So I think that what we could then do is say we have to vote them all individually, which would be time consuming. And we've got enough things not to, but yeah. I'm just thinking some of these bodies, you know, like take, for example, personnel boards that, you know, you or someone said, I really want to be in personnel boards. And we hadn't put it on the list. And they didn't ask for one. That goes to a vote of the full council. Correct. Okay. We are appointed by the full council. So I particularly think one way or another. I'm thinking planning boards. I'm just going to say I want to be on planning board. And if that's on a list of nine committees or nine, and it's a, we're voting on all of them. I mean, would I make a motion to move one of them and say, I want. No, we're not voting on those. Yeah, you would. If we were going to vote it on a slate, you'd vote to take it off and then make an argument why we shouldn't have a liaison for that body. If you really wanted to do that, you could do that. I would actually. Okay. Because we've made some good arguments today why it shouldn't have a liaison. All right, Lynn. And then I'd like to move forward on this because I think we're shifting into how I'm just going to suggest a process that I think would help us get through the council. We have the first nine lists and we vote that as a list. Okay. If somebody wants to remove fine, we have the second. And at that point, we say we're not, these are recommended. If somebody wants that list, something on that list, then we go through the process of voting an additional one. All right. And then would you say, and if there are any bodies that someone wants to be a liaison for that we are not on any list that we presented to you, would you go to that third step or not? Yeah, but again, I mean, you don't have to. I mean, if you just want to know what this committee is doing and you want to make public comment, just go to the meeting. Right. Yeah, I think the implication of having liaison is that the council is there and is observing in some way in a formal capacity versus just someone there as a resident, right? Like, I think that that's the implication of having liaison. And so some committees want that, some committees don't, and some committees want it for a totally different reason. But okay, so what I'd like to do is vote to recommend to the council the following committees for liaisons with the understanding that we will also include in the memo the remaining committees that we are not strongly recommending, as well as committees that did not seek liaisons and those that already have council members or have no response. That's my plan. Does that sound good? So basically, yeah, four, four groupings. Yeah, okay. Yeah. I think I need a formal vote on this, don't I? I think probably it would be wise for us to do it. Let's just do it. All right, so I move that the GOL committee recommend the following committees receive council liaisons for 2024. The Amherst Affordable Housing Trust Fund, the Board of Health, the Council on Aging, Conservation Commission, Community Preservation Act Committee, Community Safety and Social Justice Committee, Disability Access Advisory Committee, Energy and Climate Action Committee, Human Rights Commission, and the Transportation Advisory Committee. Do I have a second? Second. I just point out that that's 10 committees. Oh, 10. I counted. 10 feels fine. I didn't say a number in my motion just to make sure I didn't stir that up. That was really intentional, George. Thank you. All right, let's take the vote here. Lynn. I. Thank you, Pat. I. George. I. And I am an I as well. So it's four in favor, zero opposed, one absent. All right, Lynn, you can take that down. Thank you so much. All right, folks, we're going to move on to finance. So the deal with the finance committee is that the notice has been posted on the bulletin board. Our responsibility is to see if we have a sufficient applicant pool. I have reached out to prior applicants and we have received two, we received another one this afternoon, two CAFs. I always mix up with a committee or community or community activity form. There we go. And as of the posting, so those are the ones that are valid. I did reach back out. I would like to shout out someone who has since been selected for multiple other leadership roles who just wrote me back. Ha, when I asked if they would like to resubmit a CAF for this, but we have one vacancy and two applications. They, I don't know if the file had been updated to reflect the one we received about a couple hours ago. Lynn, I think we have three or four. Is my list wrong? Well, there's something, something in our GOL. It's hard to decide who we've heard from. We had two going into our last meeting and I don't know who submitted this afternoon, but another person submitted earlier this late last week. So I believe you have to look at the submission date on that, on the Excel document in the file that's not the public file. We had one individual submit one a couple of times, but only one of them was after the deadline of the night or not the deadline, the start point of the night. And then we had a second one come in today, unless I missed one. That's my, that was my read on this. We had a couple come in right before it, but submission date is the second. So we had a number of people applying before, before the actual opening was posted. Yeah, and unfortunately, they have to submit again. Yeah. So that's the thing that is a consideration for a future shift in bylaws. If we want to look at our appointment policy to multiple, multiple member bodies, but right now we have, we have two folks. The other one is not sharing up on our sheet yet, which is understandable. I think Athena was in class. So I'm not, not faulting that at all, but we have two. So are you seeing the person that submitted on January 2nd isn't eligible? They just have to resubmit. That's correct. They have to resubmit. Isn't that wild? Why? Well, because technically you cannot submit a CAF before the opening has been posted. And this was posted on February night. And so they've been notified. Yes, they have been notified. And so we've received two from the folks. So two of the folks have resubmitted, waiting to hear back from others. But remember, we, if we decide to move forward and determine the pool sufficient today, we can, people can still submit CAFs up until we, we determine the deadline for statements of interest. Lynn. So I, I move that we, the pool is sufficient. I want to clarify just for a second because we have two, one vacancy, two applicants that are That's correct. Yeah, that seems, that seems not, that's not sufficient. Yeah. And even if we're three, I would be happy. Yeah. It's early in the game. I mean, this, this position, am I missing something here? Maybe I am. In other words, this is supposed to be filled ASAP because it only runs until June 30th. Is that what we're doing? I think the understanding is that. No, no, no, it's fine. So I think the reason why we want to push this one is because they're about to jump into the budget process and getting them seated before that. Athena, do you have a? This conversation is beginning to get hard to follow because everyone's talking at the same time. So I'm not going to tell Anna how, how to do your job, but if we could take turns, it would be easier to hear everyone. And then the other thing that I wanted to say is that I didn't update the table this afternoon, obviously. So when it's missing and I had another point and now I'm forgetting it, always my hand again when I think of it. Thank you. And thank you, Athena. That's a good reminder, folks. We will be going back to our raised hand functions, please. So, yes, the George, the expedient nature of this was due to the budget process beginning soon and wanting to have someone seated so that they're not coming in the middle of that process because we still have to go through it. Athena, did I get that wrong? No, I'm sorry. Lynn had made a motion. There's a motion on the floor. If there's a second. I withdraw the motion. Okay, thank you. I apologize, Athena. I hadn't recognized it as a motion. Thank you so much. Lynn, you withdrew your motion. Yes. Okay. All right. So at this point, there is no motion. George. Just to comment, I understand the desire to fill the position, but I personally think it's more important to have a point someone that we have strong confidence in and that we feel fits the requirements. Then we rush ahead just to fill the position because of the budget process. Maybe it'll turn out to only be two people on FIMCOM for the next month or so, and the third person will come in the middle of things, and that's unfortunate. I'm open to argument here, but I don't see the need to rush it, especially with such a small pool. We're talking right now, two official and maybe three. This is very important. Well, they're all important. What's the counter to that? I want to hear it because I'd be glad to change my mind. Sure. Lynn, before I call on you, the counter, George, is that folks can still submit their CAFs even once we've determined the pool to be sufficient? We aren't limiting other folks from submitting. What it does allow us to do is start moving ahead in the process of determining the selection guidance and interview questions. I can argue both sides of this, to be honest with you. I think that could be rushing the process before we know if we will get more CAFs. I don't think that we should approve a candidate pool in the hopes that more people will submit. I think if we approve a candidate pool, it's because we think it's ready, knowing that people can still submit. That's my opinion. Lynn? I'd like to ask, first of all, Athena, when is the term for this person supposed to end? June. I just had it pulled up. Sorry. I didn't mean to answer for Athena. It is in, I just sent for it. Somebody answer. Hang on, hang on. I'm pulling it up. Give me a minute. I think Athena's driving. Let her drive safely. I think it's Bob Hegner's term, and I think you're right. It is. It's June. I know it's June. I just wanted to confirm it's June of this year. And the question I would raise then is whether or not we really should be looking at whoever we're pointing to finish this term and take on another term. That's number one. The second thing is the last time we, I can't remember whether it was last time or the time before, we only had three candidates for one slide. Okay. I'm not seeing any motions to determine the pool sufficient at this point. If someone would like to make one, I am happy to hear it and entertain it. But otherwise, yeah. Sorry. To be clear, this is June 30th, 2025. So it's a year in change. Long time. All right. Now, Linda. I'm going to go back to move the pool. Assuming we have three, I'm moving the pool. We cannot assume we have three. We cannot assume we have three. I thought Athena said that she did, she just didn't get to post it. No, there are two. One is not posted. One is posted. One is not posted. Athena, correct me if I misunderstood. We had another that came in prior to the deadline that has not resubmitted yet from this year. And I've reached out to folks. I don't, they have not probably had enough time yet since I've reached out to them to submit their CAFs again. But I did reach out to folks from the past two years. It's worth noting, I mean, of the list, some of them are currently on the finance committee. So. So I'm sorry. Lynn has made a motion again. Is that correct? Yes. But is there a second? So yeah, Lynn's made a motion to find the pool sufficient. Is there a second? Motion. Okay. Not seeing a second. That motion fails. We will revisit this at our next meeting. At that point, we will see if we have a sufficient pool again. Okay. Moving on to, hang on, I have too many tabs open. Yes. Sufficiency of applicant pool. Nope. Okay. 2024 charter review committee appointment recommendations to town council. We are once again revisiting the sufficiency of the applicant pool. This is also not a public document, but was in your folder. And I believe we had, let's see, there are 12 in here. And I believe since that point one person or since this list was originally created, I believe one person had withdrawn their name from consideration. I am remembering that from a conversation, but I am seeking confirmation at some point from Athena that that is true that this list is 12 people, 11 people, not 12. Athena. Last time I pulled the list, there was 12 and then one withdrew. I think the name should be crossed out on that sheet. So if it's not showing up, it's crossed out, but that's that number wise that is helpful. Yeah. Okay. Last I checked there were 11. Okay. So we have 11 applicants. George. So that's not sufficient. That's the same number as we had last time. Period. I'm sorry. It's not sufficient. Okay. We are going to be, yes, it does, which is really hard. So I can't, why can't we talk about some of these other things even though we don't have a sufficient, just because that's the way the process was created. And we have to follow it line by line. Yeah. I mean, why can't we talk about what we're looking for and what questions would be appropriate now, even though we don't yet have a sufficient pool? Why is the sufficiency of the pool required for us to talk about these other things? This is my question. Good question. Holding up the appointments. Athena. I don't think the process, the policy recludes the committee from discussing those things before the applicant pool is sufficient. We just can't vote on them until then. I don't see why we could even, I'm sorry. I'm not looking at the policy, but I've got it. There is a specific process and there's some things that have to happen first, but I think you can talk about selection guidance at this point. I think we can discuss it. I am trying to figure out, hang on one second. So selection guidance prior to soliciting statements of interest, developing interview questions or holding interviews, the recommending committee shall adopt selection guidance. So I think we can go forward with that part. Do you want George? Hang on one second. Let me hear George's question first. I think he held out here. Does anyone see a potential problem with us talking about these things in public before we've actually declared the pool sufficient? Would that have some kind of bad influence? I'm not trying to, it's just time is precious. I understand. So does anyone see a problem? I don't see a problem with that, but that's because I probably don't see that very well. The fact that we're talking about it and what we're looking for and the kinds of questions we might ask is now part of the public. If we do this today, which is on the agenda, we could do it, is then becomes part of the public domain. Does that going to affect the pool applicants? Yeah, I don't know. I'm just wondering. Lynn? The document you're referring to is already in the packet. It's public. Right. Yeah. Sorry. All right. So it's a stupid question and that's the answer. Thank you. Okay. So we're going to start this and I wanted to just touch base as we get into selection guidance. Lynn, did you have something else? I'm sorry. No, I'm trying to lower my head. No worries. All right. So the documents, the documents. I can get the document out. Okay. So I had reached out to counselors seeking their input regarding the selection guidance and interview questions. We're going to start with selection guidance. And what you're seeing here is verbatim copied from my email, what folks sent me, not in any particular order. I tried to order the interview questions, but we're going to focus on selection guidance right now. So let's see. As a reminder, while we already did solicit input for interview questions, the selection guidance comes first because interview questions should also relate back to the selection guidance. This is what we are using as we review statements of interest and as we move forward in interviews, thinking about what we want to have front of mind as we are thinking about the who will comprise this committee. I'm going to give folks a minute to read this through because I know this was a late add to the packet. Would anyone like me to read it out loud? Lynn? I don't want you to read it out loud. I want to suggest that across the entire committee, some of these things would be important, but not everyone on the committee needs to possess these characters. I think that is it. Yes. Thank you. Can you make it a little bigger? I can pull up the dock. I'll make it bigger. Hold on. Just let me lower my hand. Thank you. George? Lynn makes a very good point. It's selection guidance, so I think the term is meant to reflect that these are, it's not like you must fill each of these criteria, and if you don't, then you're out. It's simply things that we will consider in evaluating a candidate, and they're not in any particular order, and so I don't know if it's worth putting that in some statement somewhere, but I think the word guidance is meant to convey that thought, and it's certainly the way we're approaching this, that if somebody looks at this and goes, well, I don't know anything about the charters, so I shouldn't apply for this body. Right. That shouldn't be there. Pat, raise your hand. I'm sorry. Sorry. I'll shut up. Okay, so I think George, it's a really, it's a good point, and I think when we post the selection guidance, we can include an introductory sentence that says something like, the committee shall include membership which may include the following or something like that. Essentially saying your point is no one person needs all of these things, but the committee as a whole should have some sort of representation from each of them. In some way. Is that what you're saying? Yeah, that's basically our approach. Lynn was saying, and I agree. Yes, thank you. Sorry, Lynn. Yes, I agreed. Okay, so going through this, are there any objections to anything on the list of selection guidance? We have, I'm not going to read it. I already promised I wouldn't read it out loud. George. So how important is it that they actually have read the charter and know the charter? I mean, I have to confess, maybe I shouldn't confess this in public, but it's not a document that I read that often. And if someone gave me a quiz on it, I'd probably have to do some studying. So when we say familiar with the charter and familiarity with restrictions on what a charter review committee can and cannot do, that strikes me as something that would be the first order of business once this body was formed. Everyone would go home and read the charter and come back with questions and it also be instructed as to what the limits are. And the fact that they may not know what they are beforehand, I'm not sure is, I guess I'm just asking how important is it to people that somebody be a charter whiz or even know much about the charter in terms of our evaluation of them as a potential member of this committee? It's a question. Pat, would anyone like to respond to George's question? Lynn, is yours in response to George? Yes, and again, it's across the committee you would have this. So I've really hope at least one or two people on this committee have had some familiarity with the charter. But it doesn't mean that they all have to have that. Thank you, Lynn. Pat? There's a way in which people read these things and think they have to have it. And there are people who are in the pool right now who have familiarity with the charter. I don't think it should be there. I agree with George. We want this pool to be a group of people who are really interested. I'm thinking about someone who got on the redistricting commission and hadn't done anything like that before and did a stellar job. So I think that I don't think either one of those things should be there. As George said very clearly, you tell them what the rules are. And that's, you know, and that would and then so I don't know. I just don't see the. I think my response to George is, oh Pat, are you done? I apologize. My response to George's question is I think that the first one is more important than the second one. I think that having someone with familiarity of the charter would be helpful. And for all the reasons that Lynn said, I think that the second point has will be made clear and also was very clearly in the bulletin board posting and in the committee charge and all of that. So I am less concerned with the second one. And more, I do think it would be beneficial to have someone who might be really familiar with the charter and its ins and outs. That said, I know that this committee is being staffed by someone who knows the charter very, very well. And so I'm sure that they will, you know, have a good grounding in that who I think would be willing to give you a quiz on the charter. George, if you ever, Athena, I don't know if that's something you'd be interested in, but I bet George is excited to take one. So I do think that there is merit in having. I do think that there is merit to having familiarity with the charter itself in there. But I don't, my question is how do you prove that? Yeah. For me, that's my bigger question of how we frame this. Lynn? Again, I think the thing that's really confusing in all of this is it doesn't say what you said earlier, Anna, and that is across the committee, we're looking for people with this. So that, and I, you know, with all due respect, I think the person who's going to staff this committee is not just stellar and knows the charter, but she wasn't on the previous charter commission. She wasn't in town for the debates. And some of that previous knowledge is useful. You know, during this charter discussion in the past, we discussed this. Here's some of our thinking. You know, you can get that from other people too, but I, I would find it, frankly, bizarre if they weren't familiar with the charter bluntly. Thank you, and Pat? Yeah. Hold on. I want to get it so I can. One of the things I was thinking, if you want to keep familiarity with the charter itself in there, I really think there are some of the things that are more important to me, and the charter is important in the knowledge, but mix of perspective, skills, ages, and occupations, demographic diversity, diversity of residency, those are things that I feel like should be at the top of our list because positioning them there is encouraging to a range of people who might be hesitant to apply for this. So if you want to keep familiarity with the charter, I would like to see it lower down on the list. Okay. And I do want to just remind you this list was literally what I got in order that I received it. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, judgment. But I hear, okay, I also think it'll be important to specify in that little description that we give that the following are not presented in any rank order unless that's what we are intending, which I don't think personally is helpful. I think that, Lynn, what you're saying, though, gets back to my question of how do you prove familiarity with the charter? And I think that your point is valid of understanding this was a bruising undertaking for this town when we went through it the first time. And so I understand where you're coming from and saying there is merit from someone, from hearing from someone who's familiar with the charter in the context of that first process. But I don't think that that is the same thing as familiarity with the charter. Someone could have moved here, you know, a year ago and learn it really, really well. So I'm wondering if you would like to reframe this in some way of saying familiarity with the charter process the first time or however you want to frame that, if that gets it more so what you're seeking. No, to me, it's all in how you ask the question. Okay. If they're familiar with the charter, somebody, gee, how have you gained familiarity with the charter? And somebody says, well, I was on the previous charter commission. Okay. Somebody else says, you know, as we started the new form of government, I read the charter, I've actually used this section of the charter. And other people just say, you know, I'm not that familiar with it. That's fine. As long as it's, again, it's just across the committee, it would be good to have. I hear that, but I think I'm not sure if I'm clarifying my question or what's sticky for me is you're talking about the question we asked, which is great. But what are we measuring the answer against, right? And typically we're measuring the answers against the selection guidance. And so if someone is answering, you know, how they've experienced the charter, what are we looking for? Again, not from every person, but from at least one, it sounds like we're seeking what is it just knowledge of it that they know it inside out and can quote it? Is it that they were engaged in the process in the past? Is it and I know that we can add that clarifying languages, but language in, but I think that if there's something beyond just being able to quote it or have read it or something like that, I'd want that to be specified because again, I think what we put in the selection guidance drives what questions we ask and what we're looking for in the composition. So I think when I read familiarity with the charter, I see it as I can tell you exactly what's in it, not necessarily that I've experienced it. That's what I'm saying. That's how that reads to me. And maybe I'm alone in that, but I think familiarity with the charter itself does not read as has experienced with the charter process or anything like that. George. I'd like to bracket this for a moment and look to some of the other characteristics. Could we do that and then come back? Sure. Let's let Lynn. Yep. Let's let Lynn make a comment and then we can come back to it. I mean, maybe it's just in was engaged in the discussions in the last charter revision or something like that. And that means you could have been on a committee or not on a committee. You could have been testified before them. You could have been on a previous select board when they were asked. There's all kinds of ways in which you could have been engaged in the previous discussion. That's all. Okay. Okay, let's move on and come back to this. George. So what do people feel about suggesting that someone who's had some prior experience on a town board or committee or has served as an elected official in some town, not necessarily an Amherst? Is that something that we would be interested in? I agree with Pat. Mix of perspective, skills, ages and occupations, demographic diversity. That makes sense. Diversity of residency helped me here. It's just my English. That simply means people have not everybody's lived here for 40 years. Is that what that means? Or does it mean they live in different parts of town? What does that mean? The ladder. I believe that the intention is the ladder. They come from different parts of the town. So demographic diversity is also... So we're talking geographic diversity, demographic diversity, mix of perspectives. What do people think about prior service? I also would like to throw in engagement in the community. Some experience or activity in the community, or if not in our community, some other community. Could be anything. Sports, tutoring, schools, whatever. People feel those are... I'd be looking for that even more than charter expertise, which would just be somebody who is active in their community. And not just sitting around reading a charter. Hey, don't knock my weekend plans. My take on this is I'd like to really stand behind, including some committee membership that has experiences on boards or committees. Some charter review committee experience from folks with experience on boards and committees. Because I think those are the folks that, depending on the committee, work closely with the council, but also are bound by the charter themselves and how they work. And so I think that it's important to include that perspective. I think that our committees, having served as a liaison, our committees get really frustrated with certain elements of the charter because they bump up against it when they're trying to make changes. So I do think that committee membership, or committee experience is an incredible asset to this. I also do see the historical perspective of why things were in the charter in the first place being important to have on there. And being not... That can't be the entire committee, right? I think that it's really important to have folks who were not part of that discussion and conversation as well. I think for me, it's really that blend. But I will go to bat for having the... I didn't write it, but having prior experience in town government on a committee or something like that. I think that that is really important. Again, not for everybody, but for some members. Lynn? Yeah, I just want to go back to saying not everybody. I can't imagine appointing a nine member committee where nobody on that committee has ever been involved in any other town committee. I mean, all I'm saying is two or three of them have had committee experience. Not everybody. Not everybody lives on, you know, Podunk Street. It's trying to get a good mix. I'd like to propose something that sort of a little bit of a thought exercise here. When we are reading this, because we haven't added in the sentence that clarifies it, would you be happy with a committee that had one person for each of these bullet points? And if so, what is missing? I know that's not possible, but that's the idea. So if you have one person that has familiarity with the charter, one person that has prior service on the town committee, one person who has a different age than everyone else, one person who has... So read through these. Is that a robust and effective committee? And if not, what is missing? Or what is unnecessary? George. I would like to see members of the committee who are active and engaged in their community across the board and just involved and engaged at some level. I'd like to know something. Yeah. Community. So prior experience. Not just community engagement, just engage with their community. And, you know, not just outreach, but we have prior experience in community engagement slash outreach, which I think is relevant to some of the things that this commission is going to have to do in terms of outreach, which is understandable. But I'm talking about something different, which is evidence of the fact that they are engaged in our community, that they are... In terms of volunteerism, activity, engagement, people feel that's important. I think it's important. I would want to... I'd like to think everybody on this body would, but certainly it'd be something I'd be curious about. And if not in our town and some other town. Evidence of community engagement. So to clarify, and you're speaking about non-governmental community engagement. Yeah, exactly. So volunteerism versus... I mean, you could put it all in one big category, but I'm separating out a specific involvement with town government and boards and committees from just general volunteerism engagement with the community at large. And I think both of those are important. I think that's just me. I don't know. Maybe you don't agree. No, I agree with that. Hands, hands, hands, hands. No, Trisha. Okay, so George, I think I get what you're saying. If we add in a framing of prior community engagement outside of town government, would that suffice? I don't want to... I would like to steer us away from specifically, and I don't think you're suggesting this specifically suggesting only volunteerism, because I do think that that privileges folks who have time and resources to volunteer, but I think that it's valid to say that those people would engage with the charter and the town differently than someone who is engaged on a committee. Fair. Any disagreement to putting that in? I haven't framed it exactly, but it's something along the lines of prior community engagement outside of town government. Okay. Seeing no objections. No, I think it's valid. Anything else as we look at this? Do we have, if we have someone matching all of these, do we have a robust and effective committee? And they may not match all of them, right? Like that's the thing is we may have a committee that doesn't have... I put in prior experience in community engagement and outreach because it was so clearly explicitly spelled out in the charge of this committee, but I recognize that that may be a stretch. So I think we also are... Yeah, that's the idea. The goal is George. What about the last one? Experience in or knowledge of data collection methodology? Yeah, that was mine too. And I put it in again as I read through the charge of the committee because it talks specifically about develop and deploy a variety of feedback mechanisms throughout the review process and analyze the feedback prior to initial preliminary and final reports. I thought it might be helpful to have someone who had experience in that arena. Would it be right to raise it prior experience with and knowledge of? It should say prior experience or knowledge, not of. Sorry, that was a typo. Okay, so prior experience or knowledge of... We could say... Yeah, so having experience with or knowledge of data collection methodology. So prior experience with or knowledge of data collection methodology. Okay. What do people think about that? I'm fine. Does that sound good? Okay. Okay. All right. Can we come back to Lynn's and see if we can word it the way that we'd capture what I think you and Lynn are trying to get? I think I'm becoming convinced that something like this needs to be here. But maybe... Yes. Yeah, how do we phrase it is a question? Lynn, go ahead because I'm pulling up an email. I got one other email from a counselor after I'd written the memo and I want to get their feedback. So then go ahead. Prior engagement with a charter process. Okay, that's good. Yeah, that could even be elsewhere. But prior engagement... With a charter... Charter development process. Charter development process. Good. Because I agree with you that it would be strange to have a body like this and nobody knows anything about the history of the charter. That would be pretty... Can you read that to me one more time, Lynn? I'm sorry. Prior engagement with a charter committee process. Okay, thank you. Our charter development process. Development is the word you use, development process. Okay, development process. And are you proposing that we strike familiarity with the charter itself and replace it with that? Okay, great. Pat, your hand is up. Yeah, I want to make sure we strike the restrictions of the charter. Right. Strike that. Oh, yes, thank you. Strike that. Okay. The other comment I received from... Thank you, Pat, for that reminder. The other... I'm just going to read this out loud. This comment said, while we want to cast the widest possible net to ensure the greatest community representation on the committee, I'd want to... Excuse me. I'd want to know how closely applicants follow town government. Do they tune into town council meetings with some regularity? Do they at least time to time tune into some of the council committees or other committees, boards and commissions? That seems to fall more under interview questions and falls under getting at the experiences that they've had with local government. And then the next question was... Again, this gets to interview questions, I think, but I'm going to read it in case you find selection guidance in it. Is it fair to ask what parts of town government that fall within the purview of the charter applicants feel may not be working as well as others? The intent of this question would be to form a committee with a wide range of perspectives on how town government is working. I think that's really more about the questions, not necessarily the selection guidance, and we can discuss it at a later time. I think what this person was getting at, though, was about the... And this is actually one of my questions, was mix of perspectives. I have a question as to how that is a tangible... What perspectives on what is my question? We can have people with a mix of perspectives on what the best pasta sauce is, but that doesn't necessarily matter. So what are we seeking here, perspectives on what, Lynn? I think you can get at this, but through the questions. For instance, you could say, what do you think has worked well with this charter? Or what do you think needs to be improved with this charter? And you'll get perspectives that way, but I don't think you're going to get that through guidance. So do you think that it's safe to keep mix of perspectives in the guidance? Because I can see where you're coming from with, we don't want every single member on the committee to say, we only want this one thing to change and nothing else. We want diversity of thought. So do you think that mix of perspectives is both broad enough without being... I don't know. I mean, the reality is you have your selection criteria. I don't have any problem with it being in the selection criteria, but the reality is the only way you're going to get at that is through questions. I also think that we develop selection criteria so that we get a variety of perspectives. That is the entire purpose of having the selection criteria is that we don't have nine of exactly the same people. I do think, however, one of the biggest worries about this committee is that there is a diversity of perspectives. I think that's fair. I'm not feeling so strongly about it that we need to strike it. I do question what it means because I think it's a vague term, but it's not a hill I feel the need to die on tonight. George? What if it said mix of life experiences, skills, ages, and occupations? What if it said that? I agree. I don't know what perspectives means. It's a code word. I mean, we can leave it in, but I don't really know what it means. So if we shift it to mix of life experiences, skills, ages, and occupations. Just a suggestion. I don't know. Pat seems to like that. I know what life experience means, I think. Pat? No, I'm just saying I like the change to life perspective, different life experience. Okay, Lynn, I'm going to steal sharing for me for one second because I've been taking notes and I'm going to share the updated version if that's okay. Thank you. Yeah, I didn't have a word version. I know it's because I can't, word docs in my brain don't go well and so I use Google docs and then I can't. Okay. So selection guidance, prior engagement with the charter development process, prior service on a town board or committee or as an elected official in town or in another town, prior community engagement outside of town government, mix of life experiences, skills, ages, and occupations. I know all the grammar is wrong. Demographic diversity, including racial, economic, gender, and generational diversity, diversity of residency, prior experience in community engagement and outreach, and prior experience with or knowledge of data collection methodology. Lynn? Yeah, I think diversity of residency needs to be stated slightly differently. Maybe like geographic. Economic. It's what I think about diversity. Representative of all areas of town. Yeah, representative of all areas of town, making sure you have people who are renters, making sure you have people that are homeowners. So, you know, that kind of thing, representative. I think. Yeah. Sorry, Lynn, I'll let you hear it done. That's all. Maybe somebody can give a better word. No, I just want to make sure I, I still support flipping some of these so it doesn't start off with prior engagement with charter, prior service on board or committee, but I, because I really, I'm really the demographic diversity of representative of all areas. You know, those are important issues. I think representative of all areas of town still needs work. George, hand please. George, hand please. That's okay. I'm saying that because I was next and I want to go next. So, no, it's okay. It's okay. Pat, can I put them in alphabetical order and specify that they are presented in alphabetical order? Because here's the reason why. Because what you are doing is you are emphasizing some as being more important than others. And I would like to get away from that. And I think it's really important that these not be presented as a rank order. And if we put some at the front, just because those are the priorities, it's then going to look like the entire list is in rank order. And I think each of us may bring our own priorities to the table. Yeah. No, I hear that. But alphabetizing it would be fine because leaving it the way it is does exactly what you said, but in a different, with a different emphasis. Absolutely. Yeah. So saying, so I think, yeah. Now, this is selection guidance for us though, right? Yes, but it's public. Oh, okay. Yeah, then, yeah. I mean, it's already public, right? Like this isn't a, my other, oh shoot, I had another, oh, Lynn, you were talking about the geographic representation of town. And you mentioned a couple of things that I think are demographic, not geographic. And I want to clarify that that should be part of our demographic diversity question in terms of we get to life experiences thinking about folks who are homeowners, renters, et cetera, et cetera, that, that I think is part of and should be specified. If that's important, I think we should specify it as part of the demographic diversity element. I think my thought around the geographic diversity. And I know other committees have wrestled with this. And I want to see if maybe, I guess, Pat, if you think back to your time on CRC, if CRC has discussed this before, but would it be better to say representation from multiple districts or representation or something like that to get it, we don't want, you know, only, I'll throw my own district here, you know, only people from District Five because we experienced this differently, maybe. That's my question. Athena? I was just going to suggest you out the word district. So district residents, so it's clear just. I always feel really validated when Athena agrees with me. Okay. So should we say representative of all town districts? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Again, this is an ideal. This is not a guarantee. Really? And you wanted, I thought, to include in terms of economic distinction between renter and homeowner. And I think that is also something that we would like to see. Yes. Racial economic housing. Why not simply say renters and owners? Yeah. Homeowners. It's a very real split in this town, so. Because I don't, because I agree that it's a big split in this town. And I also think that there are other lines that are bigger. Or is it life experiences, scales, ages, living situations, and occupations? A little too vague, I think. Too vague. Okay. I think, yeah. Yeah, no, I seriously think. Demographic diversity, including renters and homeowners. Yeah, that list is getting long, but I see. Yeah, that's where I'm. And then to put like renters and homeowners next to racial, economic and gender diversity because like it's, they're really different scales. Yeah, yeah. So you may be a separate entry. Demographic diversity and take out economic and then put under economic diversity, including homeowners and renters. Would you take it? I would agree with you, except. I raise your hand, please. And that is economic diversity. I also don't think that in this town, economic diversity dictates renter or non-renter at this point. Pat. I'm wondering if it couldn't be shifted to representative of all town districts and renters and homeowners or homeowners, renters, homeowners, business owners, I don't know. Can't we just say housing diversity? I'm not sure people understand what that means. Okay. So I think if this is a priority, we should say nicks of homeowners and renters. I don't think we can shoehorn it into another category at this point. George, thank you. You're welcome. I just wanted to do that. I just wanted to raise my hand and have you recognize me, that's all. No. What about students? I say that with great reputation, but what about students? Why trepidation? Because we've had an experience, I don't want to get into too many details, but under my time when I was at this years ago, we created the redistricting commission for my very much like this and we worked hard to get students involved in it and it did not work. On the other hand, that's a whole different matter. This is just a question about do we want to hear from students and I don't really know. The charter is not something that they really pay much attention to or have much interest in. Maybe we just leave it quiet. I don't know. George, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Thank you. I also want us to remember we have this phrase in here, which is could mean a variety of things. Life experiences could mean a variety of things. Pat? Good. I'm sitting here going like, what? I'm sitting here wrestling with my own values in the sense that we're talking about working on the charter. Does it matter if you're a homeowner or a renter, a student or a non-student in terms of where in the charter are you affected that you wouldn't necessarily want to be involved? I don't think it's horrible to have those things there, but I'm feeling like I'm starting to feel like we're trying to cover every base and what is it we're really looking for? Sorry. Lynn? No. I'm not sure I feel we should put this in, but should they be a registered voter in Amherst? Don't we have that as a blank? Is that a blanket requirement for committee service? I can't. What does it say in the charter, George? I think that's a good question. Lynn, I think that's a valid question. Athena? You don't have to be a registered voter to serve on a board or committee. Right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. That's right because we have people under 18. Fair. Thank you. Lynn, I don't know that necessarily that should be put in there for exactly the reason I just said. I'm fine with that. I would not. I wanted to just raise it. It's a good question. My point that I wanted to raise was I think that Pat is, I agree with Pat in some senses and disagree with others. I think that I could go through the charter and tie that line back to all sorts of things. But I do think that this phrase of life experiences, life experiences also could include housing. It could include student status. I think that what we're trying to get with life experiences is covering this. But I think that we pull out some other things because they are differentiators to Pat's point in how someone experiences or would work in this committee. But I actually would argue that we don't need this specifically in here because I think it's covered under life experiences. I agree. Okay. Any objections to me taking this out as a separate line? Okay. All right. It's 908. Here's our list as we're going. I will put them in alphabetical order. They are not currently. What I'd like to do before we wrap this conversation up is add in that sentence that we had discussed about this being a guidance for the broad committee membership, not individual committee members. I'm just going to try to type something out as I think about it. Items below are not intended to be requirements for each committee member, member, and are, oh my God, typing when people are watching me is my biggest fear, are instead intended to serve as guiding recommendations for the committee as a whole. This is terrible. Basically we're saying this is not. Where do I go from here? It's not a. It's kind of like what Lynn has been saying, a mix so that we have a mix of people and experiences. I feel like I just take this bullet mix of perspectives and we're going to have to work this sentence better. Yeah. Yeah. This is. No, this is wrong. Get it out there and we'll just go. I needed to put something down so we could edit it. Lynn. Yeah. This has been stated a whole lot better in some other place and I'm trying to. Exactly. Where it was. Yeah. Something like. Oh God, it might have been when we would just use that. It might have been the leading sentence we used for the selection guidance for the Districting Advisory Committee. Right. And so we should do homework. Let me see if I can simply find that. Okay. All right. I'm going to pause sharing for a second because I want to just look back at the stop share don't end meeting. Oh my God. That would have been a disaster. Okay. So what I'd like to do for a second while Lynn is looking up that language, we're going to come back to this in a moment. I wanted to with an eye for the agenda here. Talk about our timeline with this. We are not finding the pool sufficient today. Unfortunately, that means that we are likely going to have to add some meetings in in order to get this committee seated so that they have a year to do their work because they are time bound. And they have to submit a final report, which is the final of three, not the first of three, the final of three by April 1, 2025. So they have to get an initial report, a preliminary report and a final report by April 1, 2025. So that is why this push is here. And I want to talk about I've mapped out some possible dates for us to add. And I want to talk about them at this point. George. No. Okay. We'll come back. Wait. No. Come back to you. I'm back. Okay. You're back. So the I got to look at my little map here where I talked about it, but we had talked about or Athena and I had talked about the necessity of possibly adding meetings on in the three dates that we can add them on are the 29th of February, which is next week. That is not a GOL typical meeting week. The 11th of March, which is a Monday, but it's a non-council Monday. And the 14th of March, which is a non-GOL Thursday. Ideally, we'd be conducting interviews on these days, but because we haven't determined the applicant pool sufficient, we can't set an interview date yet. I am going to say that I think we're going to need a meeting on the 29th to help her to get this pool sufficient. Do folks feel like that's long enough? Lynn? I mean, that means that somehow in the next five days, we wrestle up more applications. If we want to do anything, we would use it for, did I just commit to another meeting that day? The initial thought for what it's worth, the initial thought for that meeting was that we would be voting on the selection guidance and developing the interview questions. If we weren't able to do it tonight, the thought was that we'd have to do it next week. That's the town is doing their national day for truth and reconciliation. Okay. All right. So let me revisit, maybe Athena and I can connect at some point in the next couple of days to revisit this and I can do this by email, but we're going to have to add some meetings in if we want to get this group seated. Pat? I have a quick question. Are we talking about the 730 to 930 time or are we also talking about 630 to 830? Thank you for that question. The March dates, we could move earlier because we would be meeting, we could meet at six, the normal council time. Wait now, 630. When do we meet for council? 630. We could meet at 630, sorry. And Athena said that she's able to do an earlier time on that Thursday as well because it's her spring break and so the woman that's going to spend her spring break with us. Is this which day? You're not raising the panel, any? That would be the 14th. 14th? Yeah. Are folks available on those two dates? I won't, I'm not going to schedule the meeting right now, but are folks available on the 11th and the 14th at 630? March 11th is my 78th birthday. Happy birthday. We will not be, we will not be having Pat at that meeting. I will not allow Pat to be at that meeting. I will not be at that meeting, but thank you. Good. Happy birthday. Thank you. Lynn? I actually will not be available. On the 11th? Okay. No Pat, no one. All right. So there is a quorum if you and Freca can do it and Georgie. Okay. I'm going to need to regroup. Oh, this poor committee. Okay. I think I'm going to need to regroup with Athena because where I need to recreate this timeline because initially that the idea I had in my head was it would be nice to be able to do interviews on those days and obviously that's not going to happen. Lynn? Can I just point out that when we develop this charge, we have to appoint the committee in the year 2024. They're supposed to report back within a year. It is highly desirable that they do report back within a year so that they report back to this council who will be engaged in this discussion because the council ultimately makes a lot of the decisions based on recommendations. But if we slip for a month or two, it's not going to be the end of the world. Right. I have a question. Can we modify the charge if we need to or wait, can we grant them an extension if we need to? Extensions are allowed. Yes, we can. I think I asked Athena that same question last week so sorry that I needed to just ask it again. Okay. I'm not going to then, I will not panic. I will restrain my panic. Do not panic. And I won't cram four more meetings on you this month. But I think that it doesn't sound, we will not meet on the 29th because there's a town event that's very important on that night. We will be meeting again on the 7th for a regularly scheduled meeting. At that time, I will have an updated plan and hopefully by that time, we will have a broader pool. My big deep ask is Canvas outside the grocery store, email everyone you know, email everyone's parents that you know, everyone please, we need this pool to be broadened for Charter Commission and we're just, it's not moving. We haven't gotten new caps for it. So we need to, everybody's got to put some real time into that in the coming weeks. We have a robust list of draft brainstorm interview questions. Once we have, that is pretty clearly outlined I think in the, in the appointing process that once we've approved the selection guidance, then we can start moving on the questions. And once we've set an interview date, but we can't sit it all, it dominoes, right? We can't set an interview date until we've established the pool to be sufficient and we can't do the interview questions until we've set the interview date. So at that point, we'll have some future decisions to make such as how many questions do we want to see based on how many applicants we have? Do we need to split it up over two nights, one night, one day, two days, however we want to do that? So bear, bear in mind those questions as you're thinking about the next path forward. You don't need to come with an answer, but know that those are the questions that we'll be posing is how many, how long do we want these interviews to take? And how do we want to go about that? Because that will determine the number of questions and the amount of time that we give. We made good progress, even though we haven't buttoned anything up on this. Are folks, any questions on this, on the Charter Review Committee process? We have tentative selection guidance that is not loaded on nor is it final, but we've tentative selection guidance. I will put it back in our packet for the next meeting updated so that we can review it again. All right, seeing no questions. Yeah, George, you're muted, George. And then I want to come back to see if, Lynn, if you were able to find that. Sorry, I didn't want to... If not, I'll look for it later, if that's all right. You were muted, so you did not talk over me. Yeah, we want to come up with a sentence introducing the selection guidance. And Lynn has made a suggestion. It might be in the DAB selection guidance. I'll look as well. Thank you. We'll work on that. Okay, thank you. If you find it, please, please send it my way. And I'm happy to work that in for the next packet as well. Okay, are we ready to move past this agenda item for now? Okay, thank you, everybody. That was good. Good brainpower, good thinking, very proud of you all. I appreciate everyone's wisdom on this. We've got a set of minutes, I believe, adoption of the February 8th meeting minutes. So I'm going to move the Council approve the minutes of February 8th, 2024. Is there a second, George? Second, my second. Thank you. And I'm going to call the vote. George, heading vote. Hi. Pat. Hi. Lynn. Hi. Hi. And I am an I as well. So it passes four in favor, zero, opposed, one absent. All right, folks. So coming up, I don't have any unanticipated items under the 24 hour rule. Coming up, just a peak of coming attractions, we will be revisiting the Charter Commission and the Finance Committee at the next meeting. Hopefully we've got robust and thrilling pools for both. And that's really the plan. We also on the horizon, we have a report due back to the Council by April 30th regarding the town manager evaluation process. I will be introducing my outline of the, how we're going to tackle that at the next meeting. Unless, I feel like I should caveat this before I think it's like, don't promise things that are going to be on the agenda, unless something changes and I don't think we will have time. But we do have a report due on April 30th regarding the town manager evaluation. George, you're muted, but I see your hand is up. I'm wondering about a work plan at some point. Just giving us a sense over the next couple of months. What are some, without getting too specific, what are some of the things that we plan to be working on or will be working on or could be working on. Right now, I feel like my vision is very, very short. And I'm wondering what things look like a couple of months down the road to the degree that we can do that. Was that possible? Yeah, I have a work plan that's very specific. And so because it's so specific, I haven't, it's not something that I've shared with the committee. It's more just me keeping my brain straight on what's going on the agenda. So why don't I take a look at it and try to zoom it out a bit and I'll see and we can look at it and talk about it. Yeah, I think that's fine. I'll, I'll confirm with Athena what makes sense and chip because what we don't, my understanding is that what we don't want to do is promise something will be coming up in front of a committee on a certain date and then it doesn't because things get pushed. But I think if I can zoom it out a bit, we can definitely, I can, I think we can get that for the next meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Anything else from folks before we, for the good of the order before we depart? I was informed today that the meetings technically go until 9 30 and not nine. I had been really pushing for that nine, but today we needed the full two hours. So any, anything else before we adjourn for the day? George, you are muted. I'm going to say something wise for us. Okay. Thank you all very, very much for your engagement and participation. Happy Thursday. I will see you all in the seven. Take care. Thank you.